The idea of an education is to prepare chlidren for working as adults.

This is one of the problems with a lot of the talk about changing the education system, and which direction that change should take. Not that there should not be some changes (many probably) to education. To say though, that it is only to prepare children to work as adults is basically manufacturing cogs in a machine. Education isn't about working as adults, it's about becoming adults, in your decisions, philosophies, how you choose to live, and having a solid basis for all of this. Whether one is a worker, entrepreneur, entertainer, educator, whatever they choose to be, the idea that education should be strictly focused on this one thing is dumbing down humanity and it takes away from our humanity. We are each more than the sum of the work we do I should hope, and even the work we do can be improved by approaching education more holistically... I know, fucking liberal socialist activism, but every explosion in societies' move forward started with improvements in education since the Roman Empire.

However, every single adult I've heard talk about it has said that there is almost no connection between what they learnt at school, and what they do at work.

Well, the vast majority of jobs take very little education. I imagine if you talk to more scientists, doctors, historians, etc this would not be the case. There is some point to this though, there definitely should be more hands-on, realistic models for education later in one's schooling.

Would a newer system (for any country) in which you can specialise into a specific field, where you learn job applicable knowledge, giving students greater choice over what they learn.

I definitely think more job application should be present in the higher grade levels, and some schools already offer this, and are often more successful than more current models (thinking of a local high school with a great trackrecord for producing successful students, no actual statistics so correct me if someone finds some), but again, at what age do you ask a child to commit to a job they are going to do for the rest of their life? Do you teach this one thing without any courses in other areas? It is a fine line and should be approached carefully I think.

There are almost unlimited options, yet, after going to varous school systems, in varoius parts of the world, and talking to many people about education, I've yet to find one that stands above the rest, for the right reasons. Basically, just put your thoughts about whatever education system you went through, specify which country it's in if you feel it's relevant.

Whether one could be called universally "the best" is debatable but there are statistics. It's a matter of taking one of their models and applying it more broadly, to more schools.

Here's a source for some very successful high schools: http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ best-high-schools

Here are the "top" colleges, and most lists more or less agree:

http://education-portal.com/articles/List_of_the_20_Best_Universities_and_Colleges_in_the_World.html

I can't speak for other countries, but the American education system is highly flawed. Teachers aren't treated like they're supposed to be, students don't take study seriously(most of them), and you're forced to learn things you don't need.

I think the best thing to do would teach everything to a certain level. Like, basics of everything, then let the student pick one or two things they enjoy and let them focus on it.

I posted this on a similar debate on whether the Finnish or Korean education model is better. I figured that my criticisms should also be aired here so I've copied and pasted my entire argument here.

"I live in Singapore and our education system here is very much like the system in South Korea. When I read the reasons why my fellow debaters from the USA feel that the Finnish education system is better, I'm sorry to say that they do not fully grasp the gravity of the issue.

In Singapore, much like in South Korea, the pressure faced by the students is so immense that it is not unlike students to contemplate suicide even in the early or mid teens, let alone at the university level (see link for recent case of university suicide in South Korea). Like in South Korea, Singapore, a year or two back, was also faced with suicides at one of the three universities. To give you an idea of the education system in both countries, here's a brief timeline:

1. It is quite common for kids to be interviewed to get into kindergarten. It is also a common sight to see parents queuing up outside of kindergartens for hours to even days on end to get their kids into the right kindergarten.

2. To get into the "top" primary schools in Singapore, parents face a variety of criterion that gives them an (unfair?) advantage over others such as whether or not the parents are alumnus of the school, the proximity of their homes from the school and even the grades in kindergarten. Furthermore, if there is an overwhelming number of applications, schools would pick and choose students by balloting. I don't know about you, but I ask you, should kids be treated as mere statistics? Or should we leave education to chance?

Furthermore, the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) have now become so difficult that, in one of the years, they asked a question based on the concept of center of gravity. This is primary school examinations we're talking about, mind you.

3. To get into secondary school, you're further streamed into "Normal", "Express" and "Special" streams. The "Normal" stream is for the lower band of students, who would then go through 5 years of secondary school education, taking the Cambridge GCE Normal Level exams at the end of the 4th year and if they pass that, they will take the Cambridge GCE Ordinary Level exams in the following year. In the "Express" and "Special" streams, they take the GCE Ordinary Level ('O'-Level) after 4 years of study. These exams are regulated also by the Singapore exams board, which makes the exams more difficult on purpose. Furthermore, the bell curve is drawn based on results such that it is literally very difficult for you to do well.

4. If they do well for the GCE 'O'-Levels, they move on into the Junior College (JC) level (the route I took). At the JC level, students study for 2 or 3 years (if they fail to promote at the end of the first year) for the GCE Advanced Level ('A'-Level) exams. These exams are exponentially more difficult than the 'O'-Levels such that a significant proportion either do not promote even in the first JC year or can't get into a university. In some JCs, the failure rate after the first year is such that 1 out of every 6 to 8 students fail to promote every year. At the 'A'-Level exams, the competition is much fiercer. To put things into perspective, the chances of getting into med school in Singapore's university is virtually 0 even if you score straight As at the 'A'-Level exams. Furthermore, in Singapore, university application is based solely on academic achievements, unlike in the US or UK where personal statements are taken into account.

If they don't do well at the 'O'-Levels, they go to the polytechnics. The difference is that in Singapore, with a polytechnic diploma, it is virtually impossible to get into any university.

Finally, throughout the entire education system, while the government schools' fees are cheap (~USD10/month), private schools cost well above USD300/month, making it exclusive only to the wealthy. And I'm talking about secondary schools' fees here, not even the JCs. The polytechnics' fees are about USD2500. Furthermore, because teachers are paid such low salaries, most of the better educated, more talented teachers quit the public teaching service and provide private tuition. In Singapore, private tuition costs as much as between USD50 to 100 per hour, again making it exclusive to middle class or wealthy families. In other words, the poor either have to be extraordinarily hardworking or intelligent to even get into university.

The competition here is so stiff that I believe any student wishing to get into the university course of their choice will not hesitate to agree with me that such an education system is emotionally detrimental to children. Now, you might say that the model in S. Korea is different from that in Singapore. But believe me when I say that it is the same or even worse in S. Korea. Thus, I do not hesitate to say that the education model in Finland is better."

For sure. Every day my teacher simply gives me my work without even explaining it then two days later "ok class you guys are not getting this so how you do this is..." y do you think we dont get it!